Aerospace Science and Technology 20 (2012) 1220

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Comparing and benchmarking engineering methods for the prediction of X-31

aerodynamics
Michael R. Mendenhall a,,1 , Stanley C. Perkins Jr. a,2 , Maxmillian Tomac b,3 , Arthur Rizzi b,4 ,
Raj K. Nangia c,5
a
b
c

Nielsen Engineering and Research, 2700 Augustine Dr, Suite 200, Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Teknikringen 8, Stockholm, 100 44, Sweden
Nangia Aero Research Associates, 78-Queens Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 1QU, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 7 May 2012
Keywords:
Engineering methods
Aerodynamics
Longitudinal stability
X-31 aircraft
Prediction methods

a b s t r a c t
A number of useful engineering methods are available for fast and economic estimates of the
aerodynamic characteristics of complex ight vehicles. This article investigates the application of three
specic engineering methods to the X-31 ghter conguration, and CFD, wind tunnel, and ight test
data are used for comparison and evaluation purposes. The emphasis is on static longitudinal stability
aspects up to high angles of attack; however, selected asymmetric and unsteady effects are considered.
Results from the engineering methods are in good agreement with experiment and CFD for angles of
attack up to 15 for most cases and higher angles for some cases. Results for pitching moment are in
good agreement with CFD, but many of the nonlinear characteristics of the airplane are not predicted
by the engineering methods. The quality of the longitudinal stability results is discussed in terms of the
prediction of the center of pressure on the vehicle. The results provide improved understanding of the
continued usefulness of engineering methods as an analysis tool during the design phase and into the
ight test diagnostic phase of a new aircraft.
2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
An assessment of Stability and Control Prediction Methods for
NATO Air and Sea Vehicles was conducted in RTO AVT-161. The
assessment includes the use of advanced CFD methods; however,
a number of useful engineering methods are available for fast and
economic estimates of the aerodynamic characteristics of complex
ight vehicles [9].
Fast and reliable engineering tools that can predict the ying
and handling qualities of a high-performance aircraft at the early
conceptual design stage of a project are essential for the understanding of ight characteristics early in the design cycle. They
are also useful later in the design cycle for conguration design
changes or ight test planning and analysis. The foundation for
these engineering predictions involves the coupling of the aerodynamic characteristics with the ight dynamics behavior of the
aircraft to determine the ying and handling qualities. This article

Corresponding author. Tel.: +11 408 727 9457; fax: +11 408 727 1428.
E-mail addresses: mrm@nearinc.com (M.R. Mendenhall), scp@nearinc.com
(S.C. Perkins Jr.), maxtomac@kth.se (M. Tomac), rizzi@kth.se (A. Rizzi).
1
President and CEO.
2
Senior Research Engineer.
3
Research Assistant.
4
Professor.
5
Consulting Engineer.
1270-9638/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2012.05.001

describes various computational engineering methods to predict

the aerodynamic characteristics required for stability and control
analysis.
The highest delity model available for aerodynamic analysis is
the numerical solution of the NavierStokes equations; however,
these solutions are often impractical for use in preliminary design.
There is still a need for fast and accurate engineering methods
which can provide aerodynamic characteristics quickly and economically. Engineering prediction methods are simplications of
the advanced CFD models, and they can vary in delity from empirical or handbook methods like DATCOM, to physics-based linear
potential-ow models, to Euler-equation solvers for more realistic
inviscid ow calculations. Three different engineering methods are
considered for comparison and discussion in this article.
The rst of these is the Nangia Aero method based on a potential panel code enhanced with models for leading-edge vortex
ow separation and eventual vortex breakdown. The second is the
SHAMAN code based on a vortex-lattice solver with an advanced
array of empirical models to enhance its capability to model the
physics of the ow at high angles of attack. The third method is
CEASIOM, a framework tool that integrates discipline-specic tools
for aircraft conceptual design.
This article benchmarks all three approaches against wind tunnel data for the X-31. The wind tunnel experiments performed on
the detailed X-31 model provided an excellent data set for validation and comparison purposes. This data set has been provided

M.R. Mendenhall et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 20 (2012) 1220

13

Nomenclature
c
CD
CL
Cm
CN
L

chord
drag coecient
lift coecient
pitching-moment coecient
normal-force coecient
reference length

p , q, r

rotation rates

time

X cp

longitudinal center of pressure

X mrc

pitching-moment reference center

angles of attack and sideslip

Fig. 1. X-31 in ight.

by DLR (Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft-und Raumfahrt) to the participants within the NATO RTO task group AVT-161 Assessment of
Stability and Control Prediction for NATO Air & Sea Vehicles [7].
2. X-31 description
The X-31 is an experimental high-angle-of-attack delta-wing
canard conguration aircraft with lex, strake, and aps. The aircraft was designed to test thrust vectoring technology and controlled ight at high angles of attack as seen in Fig. 1. The full
scale aircraft has a length of 13.2 meters (including thrust vectoring paddles) and a total wingspan of 7.3 meters. The DLR wind
tunnel model has a length of 1.7 meters and a total wingspan of
1.0 meter (7.3:1.0 scale). The engine inlet has been replaced by a
plug for wind tunnel tests. Gaps between slats, aps, and control
surfaces have been sealed in the CFD model. Sealing of gaps was
done since earlier investigations have shown that these gaps have
a negligible effect at angles of attack below 12 [1].
In addition to the DLR wind tunnel data described above, independent wind tunnel data from a sub-scale test at NASA [5] and
ight test data from DARPA are compared with SHAMAN results to
demonstrate specic features of that method.

Fig. 2. X-31 conguration paneling.

formulation with other panel codes, elements on the outer surfaces

of the aircraft components carry distributions of sources and doublets. The canard and wing wakes can be relaxed in this method,
a feature considered important in view of the presence of a canard on the X-31. The effect of the relaxed trailing vortex wake on
the canard and wing span load distribution at moderate angle of
attack is shown in a previous publication [9].
An example of the panel representation of the X-31 is shown in
Fig. 2. The intake is faired over as in the experimental model, and
the forward and aft body strakes are included in this model.
The preferred analysis technique with this engineering method
is to strictly follow a component build-up approach. Start with a
wing alone, then add a canard, and follow that with the addition of
a fuselage and tail ns. With this approach, the accuracy of results
can be assessed at every stage.

3. Engineering analysis methods

3.2. SHAMAN engineering analysis method
This article describes the results from three different and independent engineering analysis methods, each with its advantages
and disadvantages. The three methods are briey described below,
and results from each method are presented in Section 4.
3.1. Nangia Aero panel code
Nangia [4] used linear theory and surface singularity methods
(panel codes) to assess their applicability on the X-31 class of
congurations. The emphasis was on longitudinal stability aspects;
however, consideration was also given to selected asymmetric effects. The panel code is a rst-order type method. Similar in

SHAMAN [3] is a preliminary design prediction and analysis

software tool applicable to congurations operating in pre- and
post-stall ow conditions. Its approach is a direct coupling of uid
dynamics and ight mechanics for use in the ight regimes where
the ow phenomena are dominated by vorticity and separation
associated with high angles of incidence and large values of roll,
pitch, and yaw rotational rates. Under these ow conditions, nonlinear forces and moments caused by boundary layer separation
and mutual interference between conguration components can
dominate the aerodynamic characteristics of the maneuvering vehicle. Traditional linear prediction methods are highly developed

14

M.R. Mendenhall et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 20 (2012) 1220

The objective of the use of empirical modeling is to achieve a

useful design/analysis method for preliminary design that can treat
cases with high angle of attack, high rotational rates, and post-stall
ight. The features included in the SHAMAN vortex-lattice paneling
are:

Fig. 3. SHAMAN ow diagram.

for low-angle ow conditions, but these same methods are not always suited to all aspects of the dicult problems associated with
maneuvering vehicles because of the inuence of the vortical ow
eld around the vehicle.
An analytically based method to predict the nonlinear aerodynamic forces and moments on a general conguration undergoing
steady and unsteady maneuvers is contained in the SHAMAN code.
The major physical ow phenomena over the vehicle at high incidence angles are simulated, including the fuselage leeside separation vorticity and the trailing vortex wakes from control surfaces.
Post-stall ight regimes are handled with empirical correlations of
wing data. The mutual interactions between the vehicle geometry,
its motion, and the time-dependent wake are considered in the
prediction of the unsteady aerodynamic characteristics. SHAMAN
can be used to predict specied vehicle motions or ow conditions,
or it can be coupled with a six-degree-of-freedom equation-ofmotion solver to predict ight trajectories and transient performance.
The simulation of the ow phenomena and of the major physical features of the ow eld requires an appropriate ow model
for each component of the conguration. The fuselage wake is represented with the vortex cloud model which provides a means to
consider unsteady ow conditions. The unsteady development of
the wake from a moving vehicle and the motion of the wake relative to the vehicle are calculated. In a trajectory, the history of the
ow conditions and the motion of the vehicle dictate the instantaneous state of the vorticity at every instant in time. The unsteady
vortex eld is a result of time-varying ow conditions which are a
function of the motion of the vehicle. The capability to analyze the
details of a trajectory calculation enables the user to investigate
ow phenomena which can dominate trajectory characteristics and
to better understand the physics of such phenomena. The resulting
method contained in SHAMAN is applicable to generic congurations, it is not dependent on specic empirical information, and it
is economical to use. A simple ow diagram of the SHAMAN code
is shown in Fig. 3.

Relaxed wake for both steady and quasi-steady motion

Vortex cloud model (fuselage vorticity)
Predicted separation line on the fuselage
Wake vortex tracking and interference effects
Wing and canard stall models (empirical)
Vortex bursting (empirical)

3.3. CEASIOM multidelity framework system

The philosophy underlying the construction of the CEASIOM
aerodynamic model differs from that of the two previous methods.
Instead of adopting just the potential-ow model and then enhancing it with highly rened empiricism, CEASIOM uses adaptivedelity CFD, either a vortex-lattice method, a panel method, or an
Euler solver. The selection depends on the level of delity needed
to capture the inviscid ow physics under consideration. There is
only secondary reliance on empirical modeling to enhance that realism further. CEASIOM also contains a RANS solver for highest
delity and DATCOM for the lowest delity to complete the suite
of methods.
Today there is an increasing interest in running CFD computations earlier in the design stage to estimate static and dynamic
forces and moments acting on the aircraft, as a precursor to wind
tunnel testing, in order to get a head start on the controls design.
For this strategy to succeed, the simulation methods must be fast,
reasonably accurate, and easy to use, so that changes in the aircraft conguration can be assessed at acceptable costs. These three
requirements can be addressed by adaptive delity CFD, low-order
methods in the low-speed linear region, and higher-order solvers
when it is necessary to consider the high-speed and nonlinear
ight regions.
The CEASIOM framework, developed in the SimSAC project
[10,8,2] and today open-source project (http://www.ceasiom.com/),
integrates discipline-specic tools for the purpose of aircraft conceptual design. These include CAD, mesh generation, CFD, stability
& control, and aeroelasticity. However, this article will only focus
on adaptive CFD with the range of models described above and
the scripting tools which are integrated into the AMB-CFD module
(Fig. 4).
The CFD solver is Edge, an edge- and node-based Navier
Stokes ow solver applicable to unstructured grids. Edge is based
on a nite-volume formulation where a median dual grid forms
the control volumes with the unknowns allocated in the centers. The governing equations are integrated to steady state, with

Fig. 4. AMB-CFD module for aerodynamic model building in CEASIOM framework system.

M.R. Mendenhall et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 20 (2012) 1220

15

Fig. 5. Multidelity X-31 meshes generated for the CEASIOM methods.

a line-implicit approach in areas with highly stretched elements,

and explicitly elsewhere with a multistage RungeKutta scheme.
The steady state convergence is accelerated by FAS agglomeration
multigrid.
The Tornado VLM code is an open source Matlab implementation of a modied horse-shoe vortex singularity method for computing steady and low reduced frequency time-harmonic unsteady
ows over wings. The lifting surfaces are created as unions of
thin, not necessarily at, quadrilateral surface segments. Effects of
airfoil camber and leading edge control surfaces are modeled by
surface normal rotation. The modication to the horseshoe vortices allows trailing edge control surface deection by actual mesh
deformation. The steady wake can be xed in the body coordinate system or relaxed to follow the free stream. Overall effects
of compressibility at elevated Mach numbers are assessed by the
PrandtlGlauert scaling, and zero-lift drag estimates are obtained
by Eckerts at plate analogy. The fuselage may be modeled by
combinations of at plates or Munks slender body singularity
method; however, the choice of the proper geometry for such
models requires experience. Most analyses are done by simply replacing the portion of the lifting surface covered by the fuselage by
a at plate with zero incidence. The basic ow solver is wrapped
by user interfaces to create tables of aerodynamic coecients, as
well as stability derivatives, for export to ight simulators and
ight-control system design software.
Fig. 5 illustrates a hierarchy of different X-31 meshes generated for the different delity methods. The very simple mesh for
VLM simulations, Fig. 5(a), takes into account the canard, wing and
vertical tail. More detailed geometry has been built and meshed
for Euler simulations shown in Fig. 5(b). The mesh was generated automatically with the CAD and mesh tool SUMO [2], and
the CFD solutions were obtained by running the CFD code Edge
in Euler mode. The highest delity X-31 model is meshed semiautomatically with ICEM CFD driven by the script tool for RANS
simulations, Fig. 5(c). The solutions in this case are also obtained
by running the CFD code Edge in RANS mode.
4. X-31 results
The three engineering methods were applied to the X-31 ghter
aircraft conguration representing the DLR wind tunnel data for a
wide range of angles of attack. The longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics from the three methods are compared with wind tunnel
data and higher delity CFD methods from CEASIOM to assess
their longitudinal aerodynamic prediction capabilities. In addition,
SHAMAN was applied to a sub-scale model of the X-31 in poststall ight at very high angles of attack to illustrate its capability
for aerodynamic prediction under these extreme ight conditions.
Finally, SHAMAN was applied to the full-scale X-31 in a ight test
maneuver at high angles of attack for which ight test data are
available to illustrate the use of this engineering method for ight
mechanics diagnostic analysis.

4.1. Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the DLR model

For the initial results, all of the methods described above were
applied to the X-31 model tested by DLR [9]. The basic X-31
conguration is considered with aps and canard at zero deection angles. Longitudinal aerodynamic coecients on the X-31
were obtained using all the different delity methods in CEASIOM, the Nangia panel method, and SHAMAN, and these results
are compared with wind tunnel data in Fig. 6. For the engineering methods, the wakes are relaxed and interacting. For the
SHAMAN results, fuselage vortex shedding and wing and canard
stall are included. An example of the complex vortex eld associated with the X-31 at high angles of attack is shown in a later
gure.
As shown in Fig. 6(a), all methods predict the C L slope quite
well in the linear range, and this is not an unexpected result.
There is some disagreement in the angle for zero lift for all
the methods and the experiment, but this is a sensitive parameter which may depend on subtle geometric characteristics of
the model which are not represented by the prediction methods. When the canard and wing begin to stall, the linear methods differ more from the experiment. The SHAMAN results, with
an empirical stall model included, begin to indicate effects of canard and wing stall earlier than the data because of a deciency
in the stall model. If data were available on the high angle of
attack post-stall characteristics of the X-31 canard and wing airfoil sections, these could be included in SHAMAN to improve the
overall lift prediction. This information was not available for this
study.
The drag coecients from all the methods are compared with
experiment in Fig. 6(b). Note that the RANS method is the only
prediction which includes viscous drag, and these results are generally in better agreement with experiment than the other methods. The Euler and engineering methods under-predict the drag
at low lift, which is not surprising since they do not take into
account viscous effects. The results from the Tornado VLM and
SHAMAN give zero drag at zero lift as would be expected from
an inviscid method at these ow conditions. The general character of the predicted drag is similar to the measurements, but
it is clear that all of these methods, with the exception of the
RANS solutions, are not appropriate for accurate drag prediction.
The predicted pitching moment coecients are not in good
agreement with the measurements as shown in Fig. 6(c). In general, the results from the RANS simulations are better than the
lower-delity methods, but no engineering method predicts the
moment curve slope well over the complete alpha range. The VLM
model is sensitive to small changes in geometry; in this case the
wing tip twist was altered by a few degrees. The Euler results miss
the effect causing the drop in pitching moment at 1520 angle of
attack; however, this effect seems to be delayed to a higher angle
of attack in the Euler results. The SHAMAN results after canard and

16

M.R. Mendenhall et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 20 (2012) 1220

(a) Lift coecient

(b) Drag coecient

Fig. 6. X-31 conguration force and moment coecients.

wing stall do not exhibit the highly nonlinear character of the data,
but these results do approach the experimental results at very high
angles of attack. Some of the nonlinear behavior of the pitching
moment is explained in the next gure showing the longitudinal
center of pressure.
A comparison of longitudinal center of pressure results in
Fig. 6(d) shows a general lack of agreement between the prediction
methods and experiment, and much of the extreme nonlinearity
in the data is not seen. It should also be noted that these results
are very small numbers, an indication that the center of pressure
is very near to the center of moments for the experiment. The
interesting result from this comparison is that all the methods
are predicting the position of the longitudinal center of pressure
within a few percent of the mean aerodynamic chord. The results
at low angle of attack are not shown because of the lack of accuracy in this calculation when the lift or normal force approaches
zero.

4.2. Sub-scale high angle-of-attack aerodynamic characteristics

A selected set of results from the engineering method SHAMAN
[3,6] is presented for another sub-scale wind tunnel test of the
X-31 [5] to illustrate how this method can be used at very high
angles of attack. It should be noted again that SHAMAN is essentially the same level of engineering method as the panel methods
discussed previously; however, SHAMAN has included empirical
techniques which will permit investigation at high angles of attack
in the post-stall region, and SHAMAN also includes a forebody vortex shedding model, essential for high angles of attack.
The measured and predicted normal force characteristics on a
model of the X-31 at very high angles of attack are shown in
Fig. 7(a). For this calculation, it was critical that the SHAMAN wing
stall model be used to represent the loss of lift at higher angles
of attack, and it was important that the nonzero canard deection
and leading edge ap angles be modeled correctly. These results

M.R. Mendenhall et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 20 (2012) 1220

17

(c) Pitching-moment coecient

(d) Longitudinal center of pressure

Fig. 6. (continued)

are similar to the previous comparisons in that the predicted onset of stall of the canard and wing appears to occur at a lower
angle of attack than that measured. The general character of the
predicted normal force coecient is in reasonable agreement with
the data. More details on this result are available elsewhere [6].
The comparison of pitching moment coecients is shown in
Fig. 7(b) where the agreement between SHAMAN and the measured data is very reasonable for an engineering method. The details of the predicted pitching moments over the large range of
angle of attack are not particularly good, but the general character
of the pitching moment approximates that exhibited by the data.
The extreme difference in the character of the pitching moment
coecients in Figs. 6(c) and 7(b) is explained in the following gure.

In Fig. 7(c), the measured and predicted locations of the longitudinal center of pressure with respect to the moment reference
center are compared. Notice in these results, the moment reference center is a much larger distance from the center of pressure,
thus reducing the sensitivity of the pitching moment results to
small changes in center of pressure. The error in the measured
and predicted center of pressure location is about the same for
both cases.
4.3. Maneuvering aerodynamic analysis
SHAMAN has application as a diagnostic tool for the assessment
of aerodynamics and ying characteristics of ight test aircraft. In
a ight test maneuver of the X-31, the aircraft is ying in trim
at approximately 25 angle of attack. The maneuver begins with

18

M.R. Mendenhall et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 20 (2012) 1220

(a) Normal force coecient

(b) Pitching moment coecient

(c) Longitudinal center of pressure

Fig. 7. Measured and predicted aerodynamic characteristics on an X-31 sub-scale model at high angles of attack.

M.R. Mendenhall et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 20 (2012) 1220

19

Fig. 8. Measured ow conditions during a ight-test maneuver of the X-31.

Fig. 9. Measured and predicted forces on an X-31 in a ight-test maneuver.

a 180 roll around the velocity vector followed by a rapid pull

up. In the ight test, the X-31 departs from the intended trajectory at about 55 angle of attack (t = 15 s). SHAMAN was applied
to this maneuver by forcing the aircraft through the actual measured ight conditions and control deections. Careful examination
of the forces and moments on the vehicle and the associated ow
eld can provide some insight into the ow phenomena which
may be responsible for the departure.
The ow angles and angular rates measured during the maneuver are shown in Fig. 8. These conditions are imposed on the
X-31 conguration in SHAMAN as the vehicle is forced through
the actual maneuver and the vortex eld is allowed to build and
evolve with the changing ight conditions. The measured and predicted aerodynamic forces on the X-31 are compared during the
maneuver in Fig. 9. The two arrows in Figs. 8 and 9 mark two key
ight conditions, one prior to departure and the other after depar-

ture, which are examined in more detail to better understand the

features of the aircraft ow eld at this critical time during the
maneuver.
In Fig. 10, the predicted vortex eld is shown on the X-31 before and after departure. Because of the high angle of attack, the
vortex eld is moving away from the airplane at a high angle, but
there are still signicant interference effects of the vorticity on the
vehicle. Note that the rudder is engulfed in part of the forebody
vortex eld just prior to departure. After departure, there is more
asymmetry in the vortex elds because of the high angles of incidence and sideslip (shown in Fig. 10), and most of the forebody
and wing vorticity is above the rudder. As part of the diagnostic
analysis of this maneuver, SHAMAN provides the time history of
the loads on each component of the aircraft to help understand
the changing loads as the ow eld changes.

20

M.R. Mendenhall et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 20 (2012) 1220

Fig. 10. Predicted vortex eld for the X-31 in a maneuver.

5. Concluding remarks
A discussion of the application of three engineering analysis
methods to the prediction of aerodynamic characteristics of the
X-31 aircraft is presented. The methods are compared with windtunnel data, ight-test data, and advanced CFD methods to demonstrate the feasibility of the use of these simpler methods to provide
fast and economic analysis results for complex aircraft congurations. The main emphasis is on the longitudinal stability aspects
with component contributions; however, selected asymmetric effects are also considered, including a full-scale ight test maneuver
case exhibiting six-degree-of-freedom motion at high angles of attack.
For the symmetric cases, the predictions have provided good
agreement with experiment and CFD for lift and normal force up
to angles of attack of about 15 . With empirical enhancements,
one of the methods has application to higher angles of attack. For
pitching moment, agreement with other CFD results is good up to
angles of attack of about 15 , but the experiments show more nonlinear behavior at angles of attack above 10 . It is demonstrated
that comparison of center of pressure location may be more reliable than comparison of pitching moment coecients which exhibit greater nonlinearity.
The application of these engineering methods is encouraging,
and they have the potential to assist in improved understanding
of the aerodynamics of complex congurations with strongly interacting and separating vortical ows. They have the advantage of
being practical for use early in the design cycle of ight vehicles
before CFD results may be available.
It was demonstrated that a useful portion of the overall assessment of the aerodynamic stability and control of a complex
conguration can be achieved rapidly using engineering methods.
Viscous effects can be introduced through empiricism to identify
possible ow-break onsets requiring further investigation. This allows more costly high-order methods and wind tunnel testing to

be focused on key areas. Conguration renements can be introduced where necessary before very costly model manufacture is
undertaken.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper is part of current in-house
R & D activities for the three organizations involved. No external
nancial support has been received. The authors acknowledge the
work of DLR in supplying Wind Tunnel results. Any opinions expressed are those of the authors who have been privileged to be
members of the RTO AVT-161 task group.
References
[1] O.J. Boelens, CFD analysis of the ow around the X-31 aircraft at high angle of
attack, AIAA-2009-3628, 2009.
[2] D. Eller, Mesh generation using sumo and tetgen, SimSAC Delivery report D2.35, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2009.
[3] M.R. Mendenhall, S.C. Perkins Jr., Predicted high-alpha aerodynamic characteristics of maneuvering aircraft, AIAA 96-2433, 1996.
[4] R.K. Nangia, X-31 vector aircraft, low speed stability & control, comparisons of
wind tunnel data & theory (focus on linear & panel codes), AIAA-2009-3898,
2009.
[5] NASA Langley Research Center, Private communication with J.M. Brandon, 1992.
[6] S.C. Perkins Jr., M.R. Mendenhall, Prediction of post-stall aerodynamic characteristics of maneuvering aircraft, AIAA 99-3115, 1999.
[7] A. Schuette, M. Cummings, T. Loeser, Dan D. Vicroy, Integrated computational/experimental approach to UCAV and delta-canard congurations regarding stability & control, in: 4th Symposium on Integrating CFD and Experiments
in Aerodynamics, 2009.
[8] M. Tomac, A. Rizzi, Creation of aerodynamic database for the X-31, AIAA Paper2010-501, 2010.
[9] M. Tomac, A. Rizzi, R.K. Nangia, M.R. Mendenhall, S.C. Perkins Jr., Comparing
and benchmarking engineering methods on the prediction of X-31 aerodynamics, AIAA 2010-4694, 2010.
[10] R. von Kaenel, A. Rizzi, J. Oppelstrup, T. Goetzendorf-Grabowski, M. Ghoreyshi,
L. Cavagna, A. Berard, CEASIOM: Simulating stability & control with CFD/CSM in
aircraft conceptual design, in: 26th Intl Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences,
Anchorage, Alaska, Sept 2008 (ICAS-Paper 061).